home

The multi-billion dollar question of Marvel's origins (Mark Evanier's long delayed definitive Kirby biography) Patrick Ford 16 March 2017 Official announcement. I'm betting the "new very good excuse" is a lawsuit or threat of a lawsuit. And I think we can guess who would be behind that. http://www.newsfromme.com/2017/03/16/second-chance/ Mark Mayerson: This is speculation on my part. Marvel is now owned by Disney and Disney is famous for protecting its copyrights. As I wrote once before, I am aware of a biography of Disney animator Ward Kimball where Disney refused to grant permission to print Kimball's Disney work because they were unhappy with portions of the book. The author, Amid Amidi, refused to bend and the book is in limbo as a result. It's quite possible that Disney's lawyers are vetting Evanier's book and that's the cause of the delay. Patrick Ford: It may well have something to do with Disney, but the big biography is not going to include any artwork. The illustrations are going to be of the sort that are typically seen in biographies of a serious nature. Things like family photographs and so forth. The coffee table book which is taking its place is filled with illustrations, many of which are owned by Disney. That is why I suspect the threat of a lawsuit from Lee. And that is complete speculation on my part. It may be the problem which derailed the biography is totally unrelated to the book. Chris Tolworthy: I'm super interested to see what's in this book. Marvel is now the hottest name in movies, and we have proof that Kirby's ideas are worth billions. Evanier's book will become the go-to source in the debate, and will still be very new when Stan Lee dies, with all the attendant retrospectives. If I was Disney I would have my lawyers go over every word, and then pass it on to more expensive lawyers, and then get a third opinion. I often have movie review shows on in the background, and one thing seems clear to me: Marvel Studios is at a critical time. Basically, it has used up all the low hanging fruit, and the superhero fashion could very easily become unfashionable again. Just this week we have the first ever Marvel flop (the TV series Iron Fist: I'm not including the Fox stuff as Marvel Studios has very little input and insiders know that). All it would take would be some negative publicity to tip the balance and many billions of dollars could vanish in a puff of smoke. So a lot is hanging on Evanier's book. Michael Hill: If King of Comics is an indication, I hope that there's another go-to source for the latter part of Kirby's career, maybe by someone who appreciates Kirby as a writer. Understandably Mark writes about what he knows and loves, which is '60s Marvel (despite the fact that he worked for Kirby while the Fourth World was being produced). After the Marvel chapter we get a single chapter for DC-Marvel-Pacific-DC. Yes there's some great art on display (Alex Ross fold-out excepted), but Kirby's '70s and '80s work, rather than being celebrated as the writing tour-de-force it was, is treated as a series of unfortunate events. This serves to perpetuate the idea that everything was downhill after Kirby broke up the Beatles. Chris Tolworthy: Michael Hill I could not agree more. I am a huge fan of the FF (see my web site for proof) but for my money Captain Victory is every bit as good. And I'm glad I'm not the only one who's underwhelmed by Alex Ross. Yes, Ross is a very competent artist with a pleasant style that was a novelty at the time, but I'd hate to be trapped in the strait-jacket of just doing photo referenced versions of other people's ideas. Patrick Ford: Chris It's incomprehensible to me that the public has not yet tired of super hero movies. Then again we live at a time when Trump was elected president. Patrick Ford: There is an easy way to deal with any concerns about Disney or Lee when it comes to the full Kirby biography. The book is a biography of Jack Kirby not a history of Marvel book so what a biographer would typically do is use sources close to Kirby to tell the story. So the recollections of Kirby and his wife as well as the Kirby children and friends of the Kirby's would be used to form a major part of the biography. This isn't to say Lee would be cut out completely. It's important to include Lee's words, but there is no reason they should be given a great deal of space. The real key for the author is to stay out of passing judgment. Mark Mayerson: I don't know if Evanier has announced who his publisher is yet. However, a publisher is liable for anything it publishes. Therefore, if someone quoted in Evanier's book makes a slanderous statement, the publisher can be held responsible for it seeing print. Even if Evanier doesn't pass judgment but someone he quotes does, the publisher has a problem. Patrick Ford: He does not have a publisher yet. He has said there are several who are interested. I doubt it would be difficult to write the book in a way which stayed clear of slander. The Kirby children are already on record in interviews which have been around for years. Of course a person can sue for slander with basically no reason at all, but their chances of prevailing would be extraordinarily dim. Further since Lee is a public figure his odds would be even more remote. Patrick Ford: BTW the burden of proof would be on Lee and it would be impossible for Lee to prove he was the real creator of the stories and characters. This is well established. If there were any way to prove it Lee and Disney would have provided it during the lawsuit the filed against the Kirby's. Instead they had nothing.

home